Need your vote plz

Consider the flight being VFR. Before going to an airport where do you obtain pertinent information?

  • Always study the Chart supplements and A/FD

  • Always look up and study Airport website

  • Always do both of the above

  • Never use the airposrt website

Results are only viewable after voting.
In tourist Alaska, if tourist were watching, I would finish loading then walk to the front of the plane and look in the direction of the destination. Then I would confer with another pilot and at times point in the general direction of intended route. Not really pointing at anything, just point and when we both pointed in the same direction, start nodding as in agreement with each other, shake hands and then jump in the plane.

But after getting in the plane and before engine start, I would duck down out of sight, pull out my cell phone and call ahead to check current conditions...
 
38 votes so far. Appears like a split down the middle. 50% use websites and the other 50% dont. Need more pool sample.
 
ahmad said:
Very interesting discussion. So far, most comments state that the airport websites aren't all that helpful and not looked up. The votes, however, are saying that more people look up the website and find it helpful?!?.

I need more votes on this. This will be a good aviation topic to discuss. More so after watching that video someone posted above about SQL.
Click to expand...

Votes for "I always use both" are actually a vote that you are from the FAA :D
 
For a quick stop or a fuel stop where there are other airports (with fuel) around, ForeFlight only.

For an overnight stop at a new place, or a fuel stop for which arriving to find they don't have fuel is going to involve a phone call and a lot of waiting, airport website followed by a phone call.
 
For me aviation is situational and always and never don’t apply.

I find value in the chart supplement.

I have found value in airport websites.

I want to learn all I can about a VFR flight and use more than the chart supplement and the airport website to gather the information.
 
I look at the airport web site if I need a special service, like a rental car or oxygen service, or perhaps to check out an on-site restaurant. I'll also check out FBO web sites if there are more than one on the airport to try to determine which to choose. But ForeFlight has most of that, oftentimes in the comments sections. I occasionally use the AFD (I don't call it a chart supplement) to look something up if I can't find it in FF, which is rarely.
 
I mostly use the airport websites to check for details on noise abatement procedures, and any airport fees. By "checking the airport website", I'm including the FBO website. If I'm overnighting and there is an option for a "reservation" on the FBO site, I'll usually do that, in order to help get better service.
 
ForeFlight, Weather Channel, prog charts, phone airports where I intend to fuel, destination airport for parking, tie down, fuel, wx info.
 
ahmad said:
Thank you. Keep em coming. I am really trying to figure out how many (if any) routinely rely on airport website to gather information regarding the flight.
Click to expand...

Depends on where I'm flying. If its a private airstrip with not a lot of info on the normal sites, yeah I'll look at the airports website. If I can find it.
 
OK we have 52 votes. That's probably good enough sample. There is a split right down the middle about the use of website for planning purposes.

The reason why I started this poll is because I got into a debate with another pilot in another forum who claims that checking the airport website is a nationwide common practice and if you dont check the airport website for your flight planning then you are a dangerous pilot and that your cfi is horrible. I use many different sources that I consider far very valuable (chart supplement, AFD, Notams, 800-brief, skyvector, foreflight, weathermeister.com, Leido for flight plans and briefs, windy.com, etc)for my flight planning but honestly never knew I could gather pertinent info (noise abatement procedures etc) from the airport websites.

His argument was that checking the website is a widespread common practice and mine was that is not. I argued that if you are one who does not check the website it does not mean you have a hazardous and dangerous attitude.
 
Last edited:
Always is a strong word, I look at the AFD and comments in Foreflight almost every time for an unfamiliar field. I check gas prices, availability of a restaurant if needed and tie down/ hangar availability if needed. I'll call if those things are critical.
 
:) settling a bet at a bar is one of the better uses of a forum topic. And more useful than "I'm doing a project for my marketing class, and..."
 
Albany Tom said:
:) settling a bet at a bar is one of the better uses of a forum topic. And more useful than "I'm doing a project for my marketing class, and..."
Click to expand...


Ha.
This was certainly an interesting topic for me. Since the KSQL incident I read a ton of opposing opinions and practices.
 
Foreflight, so I guess that's really sup/AFD? I don't think I've ever used an airport's web site.

And I concur - "Always" isn't a realistic option in a survey . . .

angry airport mgr in MD was fussing constantly about "local procedures" which weren't published - like extend cross-wind leg south of the water tank, etc. Ladies from CA in a Cardinal suggested he publish. Or STFU when he blasted them.
 
dbahn said:
Unfamiliar. What was the KSQL incident?
Click to expand...


someone posted the video link above. Basically, some guy wanted to depart vfr and the tower blasted him for not knowing the "published " vft departure procedure which was basically on the airport website and nowhere else.
 
Sundancer said:
Foreflight, so I guess that's really sup/AFD? I don't think I've ever used an airport's web site.

And I concur - "Always" isn't a realistic option in a survey . . .

angry airport mgr in MD was fussing constantly about "local procedures" which weren't published - like extend cross-wind leg south of the water tank, etc. Ladies from CA in a Cardinal suggested he publish. Or STFU when he blasted them.
Click to expand...


I would be upset too if someone expect me to know procedures not published officially . Good on the ladies. Some Mr. Know it all accused me of having a hazardous and dangerous attitude when I told him that I value the A/FD over a website. I would check the website for airports I'll fly into but I think it's ridiculous to expect everyone to know procedures not officially published.
 
Charts, AFD, etc, will get you there. I often find airport websites give great noise abatement maps and informal advice.
 
NordicDave said:
I'll look at an airport webite if the area is new to me or I'm aware there is special information availalbe. A good example is KTRK Truckee. They have particular noise abatement requirement with mountain terrain. The website has brilliant flight path animations which make the text explainations much easier to appreciate and understand.

Procedures | Truckee Tahoe Airport District
Click to expand...
Nice, and useful. . .I've been of the mind if something matters and isn't in the AFD the airport management has dropped the ball. The sources we've needed to access has grown unwieldy over the decades, especially filing IFR and with the wretched NOTAM system. . .Foreflight has conveniently consolidated and filtered that mess to a great degree, so I rely on it almost exclusively.

But I might reconsider and do a quick look at airport web sites. Usually you can tell pretty quick if a website has some value pretty quickly.
 
My procedure?

1. Pop a couple Tylenol. With luck, the hangover will be abated by the time I get to the airport.
2. Look outside. If there are no clouds, it's VFR. If there is a cloud, it's IMC.
3. Oops, there is a dude wearing an FAA uniform ramp checking folks. Come back after lunch.
4. "Ground, I'm ready to taxi for departure." "November Sierra Alpha Charlie, do you have Whiskey?" "Why, yes!" (Should I offer them a shot?)
5. "Tower, I wanna... leave. Yeah." "Where you going?" "Uh, Santa Rosa." "KSTS is currently low IFR." "Oh, um. That sucks. Anyway, can I go?"
6. Damn, tower was right.
 
Sac Arrow said:
My procedure?

1. Pop a couple Tylenol. With luck, the hangover will be abated by the time I get to the airport.
2. Look outside. If there are no clouds, it's VFR. If there is a cloud, it's IMC.
3. Oops, there is a dude wearing an FAA uniform ramp checking folks. Come back after lunch.
4. "Ground, I'm ready to taxi for departure." "November Sierra Alpha Charlie, do you have Whiskey?" "Why, yes!" (Should I offer them a shot?)
5. "Tower, I wanna... leave. Yeah." "Where you going?" "Uh, Santa Rosa." "KSTS is currently low IFR." "Oh, um. That sucks. Anyway, can I go?"
6. Damn, tower was right.
Click to expand...

Hey, when did you add that link in your sig line, now I'm going to have to buy a book, which one is the best?
 
PaulS said:
Hey, when did you add that link in your sig line, now I'm going to have to buy a book, which one is the best?
Click to expand...

The newest, Area 91 but the most five recent are pretty good. Anymouse and I worked on Area 91 and Entrenched.
 

The video in the link is long, dramatic, and over the top so be warned. I created this poll because the guy in that video argued with me that ALL pilots use websites AND that it is a common practice. I am the OP he's referring to in his video. My wife chuckled and said "only you could make someone that mad and triggered". lol


For those who want to be spared the 3 hours, he's basically crying that if you don't check airport websites before you visit that airport then you have a dangerous and hazardous attitude.
 
After a rich tenure of online trolling, nobody has ever made a 3 hour youtube to diss me. Bravo OP :D
 
Be careful out there... Anyone who's wound up enough to put out a 3 hr video about being called out as goofy may have a few cold solder joints. Thinking about that a bit, anyone that puts out a 3 hr video about ANYTHING may have some issues.
 
schmookeeg said:
After a rich tenure of online trolling, nobody has ever made a 3 hour youtube to diss me. Bravo OP :D
Click to expand...


haha thanks.
Honestly, I am embarrassed for the guy. It was just a difference of opinion. My point and thinking was that checking websites is not a common practice and that I think if it's important it needs to be officially published. His argument was that websites are official source and that checking the website is common practice. Then he made it into well if you aren't checking websites then you are dangerous with hazardous attitude. After all that failed attempts to win his point he then reached out to the moderators claiming I was using foul language (I said **** happens, and called him buddy once). Anyways, I think if you have to drink Gen and tonic for 3 hours complaining about a disagreement on the internet you are the one portraying dangerous attitude and characteristics.
 
Albany Tom said:
Be careful out there... Anyone who's wound up enough to put out a 3 hr video about being called out as goofy may have a few cold solder joints. Thinking about that a bit, anyone that puts out a 3 hr video about ANYTHING may have some issues.
Click to expand...


The guy was drinking throughout the broadcast. Oh the pain he must have had. ha
 
I always use my EFB (charts, supplement, etc). I commonly use websites like Skyvector and Airnav during my initial planning (like when at work and I don;t have my EFB). I rarely use (but have) the actual airport website and then only when I'm trying to figure something out that's not readily available form the other sources or for something has nothing to do with flight planning for that trip. To imply that using the airport's website is common or worse that not using is somehow dangerous and/or hazardous is ridiculous.
 
tsts4 said:
I always use my EFB (charts, supplement, etc). I commonly use websites like Skyvector and Airnav during my initial planning (like when at work and I don;t have my EFB). I rarely use (but have) the actual airport website and then only when I'm trying to figure something out that's not readily available form the other sources or for something has nothing to do with flight planning for that trip. To imply that using the airport's website is common or worse that not using is somehow dangerous and/or hazardous is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


I do the same. I do a ton of planning before x country flights. My NavLog and pre flight papers are like 3 pages long and very detailed. I can and have gotten everything (important) I need from these official sources. The guy is really trying hard and reaching. I only watched it to see if he disclosed my personal information. He's tippy toeing with defamation of my character by suggesting that I have a dangerous attitude because I thing looking up an airport's website is not common practice and haven't been taught to me by my former CFIs.
 
I got bored on a zoom today and dipped my toe into this thing... is he even a pilot? or just a simmer? Because I am happy to sweep the pilotedge goons, including this one, right into the "I don't value your opinion" bin -- they infest reddit with their synthetic opinions and really muck up the signal:noise ratio in places like /r/flying.

I stopped watching at around the 2 minute mark, as he reminded me of any dramatic high school girl in tone and gesture, and paying attention to my zoom meeting was more attractive than watching that. I can think of no lower bar than that :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top